9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of bonus exceeding limits under section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Applicability of section 40(c) versus section 40A(5) for remuneration paid to a director. 3. Allowance of interest under section 214 on excess advance tax paid. Issue 1: Disallowance of Bonus The first issue concerns the disallowance of bonus exceeding the limits prescribed under section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee had made a provision of Rs. 1,42,139 for payment of bonus at 20% of salaries and wages, despite the company suffering a loss and having no allocable surplus. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the excess sum of Rs. 81,914, allowing only the minimum bonus of 8.33% as per the Bonus Act. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the ITO to delete the disallowance, relying on a previous Tribunal decision and an award from the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi. However, the Tribunal found that the agreement with the employees was made after the accounting year ended and thus, the liability for the excess bonus did not crystallize within the relevant period. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the ITO's order, disallowing the excess bonus. Issue 2: Applicability of Section 40(c) vs. Section 40A(5) The second issue addresses whether the provisions of section 40(c) or section 40A(5) apply to the remuneration paid to a director. The ITO had disallowed a sum of Rs. 14,400 under section 40A(5). On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that section 40(c) was applicable, relying on a Special Bench decision of the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, affirming that section 40(c) applies in the case of employee-directors. Issue 3: Allowance of Interest under Section 214 The third issue pertains to the allowance of interest under section 214 on the excess amount of advance tax paid. The ITO did not grant interest on the full amount of advance tax paid. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the ITO to allow interest based on High Court decisions. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals), noting that advance tax payments made during the financial year should be considered as advance tax payments, as established in the cases of Traub (India) (P.) Ltd. and Chandrakant Damodardas. However, the Tribunal also noted that the legality of maintaining an appeal against non-grant of interest was not clear and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider this aspect and pass an appropriate order. Conclusion The appeal was allowed in part. The Tribunal restored the ITO's order regarding the disallowance of excess bonus, upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision on the applicability of section 40(c) for director remuneration, and remanded the issue of interest under section 214 back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration on the legality of maintaining an appeal.
|
